ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Readability of Patient Education Materials in Plastic Surgery: Assessing 14 Years of Progress.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Availability of Online Spanish Language Resources in Academic Hand Surgery.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Comparing the Readability and Content Quality of Online Patient Education Materials and ChatGPT-Generated Patient Education Materials for Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Benchmarking publicly accessible large language models for English-language patient-facing acute pancreatitis information: a cross-sectional study of quality, transparency, and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current recommendations suggest that patient education materials (PEMs) be written at or below the sixth-grade reading level. In a 2010 study, the average readability of PEMs on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and The Aesthetic Society (AS) websites was found to be at the 11th-grade level or higher. We sought to assess progress made toward providing accessible PEMs. Methods: PEMs were obtained from the ASPS and AS websites. The PEMs were entered into an online scoring tool. PEMs were scored on 3 common readability indices: Flesch-Kincaid, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). Results: The average grade level of ASPS PEMs calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and FRE readability models were 9.7 ± 1.1, 12.6 ± 0.7, and 47.6 ± 6.2, respectively. This FRE score corresponds to approximately grade 13-16 reading levels. The average of AS PEMs were 9.3 ± 0.5, 12.3 ± 0.3, and 51.3 ± 3.9, respectively; this FRE corresponds to grade 10-12 reading levels. There were no PEMs written at or below the recommended sixth-grade reading level found on ASPS and AS websites. Conclusions: Despite increasing awareness of the need for equitable access to healthcare, PEMs continue to be written at a reading level well above the recommendation. Over the past 14 years, we have seen only modest improvement in readability indices. In addition to advocating for more accessible PEMs, we must gather a deeper understanding of how patients seek information about plastic surgery.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.